On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:08:38 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 09:58:07AM -0400, Allan Edwards wrote: > > Joe Orton wrote: > > >>The fact that these casts are unnecessary can be tracked using comments, > > >>a list of issues in STATUS, or, not wishing to rock the boat, bugzilla. > > >>Using a macro just obfuscates the code. > > > > > > > > >s/unnecessary/undesirable/ > > > > I hardly think it is more obfuscating that any > > macro might be considered to be. The only reasonable > > alternative in my opinion would be to add a comment > > line for each cast with some common grep-able > > string. But to me that is uglier. > > A macro is useful if it abstracts something away. This macro does not > abstract anything away. It expands to apr_uint32_t now, and it can > *never* expand to anything other than apr_uint32_t. That is obfuscation > in my book.
If you agree with the assumption that we can't throw away the reason for the cast but need something in the source file to help us remember, then it becomes a question of the clearest way to preserve the information. To me, using a special cast like that is as clear as a comment, more concise than a comment, and more likely to be consistently applied and easily found when looking for these problems than a comment.
